[ChronoGrl]

Originally Posted by ManchestrMorgue

It's actually a different government - we had a change of party late last year.

That's too bad. I miss the pro-sex government. :p

Originally Posted by ManchestrMorgue

Perhaps though these sorts of censorship policies are really not at odds with universal healthcare and social services for single parents. I mean, these other policies create dependency on the government rather than on oneself. And if you are dependent on something you are more likely to accept being controlled/told what to do by it.

You're totally right... I was really creating a false dichotomy, which, honestly would work here in the States (being solely bipartisan, the assumption is that if, say you're an advocate for the Death Penalty, then you MUST also be Pro-Life and against abortion... By that same token, if you say you're Pro-Choice, you must also be fore affirmative action). Pigeon-holed politics drive my CRAZY (my friend just game me a similarly lame argument AGAINST me getting an SUV... Because I'm LIBERAL, I must also be GREEN... But I want my XTERRA, DAMNIT!)... The point being, it was a lame rant, but would hold true I think more here in the US than over there... I do not thing that your government is that bipartisan, is it? I must plead ignorance here.

Originally Posted by ManchestrMorgue

I really hope that is true. But this issue has been re-emerging for at least the last 2 or 3 years (from both parties). The previous party (a conservative party, more like your Republicans but not exactly the same) investigated mandatory ISP level filtering but were advised that it would slow down the internet unacceptably and so ditched the plan and instead provided free filtering software to everyone.
However they still did blacklist some sites/newsgroups, and it is illegal for people to be told exactly what was being blacklisted.

So it is really a much more extreme version of what we already have - ie government censorship of the internet.

Sure it's a step, but not necessarily in that direction. I'd imagine that the liberal counter-slippery-slope-argument is, "Well, where do you STOP censorship?" The extremists will always be out there, but it doesn't mean that they necessarily have followers... The Republicans here have been trying to overturn Roe Vs. Wade (women's right to Choose legally) since its birth (so that's over 30 years now). But it's not going to happen. There is no way that abortion is going to be made illegal (especially since they refuse to budge with allowances for rape and incest). I wonder if it will be the same case of Internet censorship in Australia. But then again, I can really only claim from my own frame of reference.

Originally Posted by ManchestrMorgue

That would be an interesting Amendment, but alas is exactly what the government is trying to block.

bwahahaha... I'll FIST AMENDMENT YOU!

Oh, I'm sorry... Obviously you're not aware of ChronoGrl's FIST AMENDMENT. It's her absolute unalienable RIGHT to BEAT PEOPLE... WITH HER FISTS. :p

Originally Posted by ManchestrMorgue

If, however, you mean the First Amendment - no, we don't have anything like that. We have no Bill of Rights.

Constitutionally, our government can do this to us. Whether they will or not is yet to be seen.

Interestingly, over the last few days this issue has been reported in most of our major papers (and some international press - eg the BBC). This I think is the best thing that can happen. I don't trust the Australian public to strongly oppose the erosion of our liberties - Australians in my experience tend to be much more easily convinced by political rhetoric than Americans. You guys seem to be a lot more cynical (which in many cases is a good thing when dealing with governments). I fear that Australians will fall for the line that this is to save children and stop perverts; and will be welcomed as such.

Do you really think so? That's fairly bleak. Are there a lot of liberals and/or activists over there?